hitmanfandomcom-20200222-history
Hitman Wiki talk:Community Portal
Site organization We are in desperate need of some organizational guidelines as far as how the site will be laid out and how pages and images should be categorized. Post your ideas here. The goal should be to have a system that makes it easy for readers to find what they're looking for, makes sense to editors and is scalable for future games and media as they come out. - Derple (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC) ---- Okay, I've made a plan to organize the pages with categorization and subpaging. Essentially, I'd like the breakdown to be category-driven, meaning you can always find what you're looking for by going to the appropriate category, and we would make links to the upper levels available on the main page and on the game front pages. First, all pages should be associated either with a specific game or an "Extras" category. The only things that should be Extra are non-game related pages like something about the movie, or pages having to do with multiple games like the Game differrences page (hopefully with a corrected title) or an overarching plot page. This would remove the need for "list" pages, such as List of Hitman Weapons, which could be found at Category:Weapons. Each page under a game, such as missions of the game, weapons of the game, etc. would be subpages of the front game page, i.e. Hitman: Blood Money/Death of a Showman. Each of the subpages would then be categorized by the type of page they are under the game, i.e. Hitman: Blood Money missions. That category in turn would be categorized by its parent, i.e. Missions, and then you could find the Death of a Showman page by either navigating through the Hitman: Blood Money page, or by drilling down from the Missions category. Here is a list of the main categories I think we should have: *Games *Missions *Characters *Weapons *Cheats *Secrets *Plot or Plot summaries For images: *''Game name'' images *Weapon images *Character images *Maps *Screenshots *Artwork *Cover art That's what I have so far, so leave some comments, suggestions, changes, additions or what have you. I'll leave this discussion open for a while to see if I get any responses before starting to implement it. Once everything is outlined to everyone's satisfaction, we can talk about our navigation system (which I also have some ideas for). - Derple (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC) :We have four of the main categories you listed. This seems like a good plan. Y462 (T • • ) 20:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Templates I believe we should implement policies for cleanup, merge, delete, etc. This would make things easier to tag and organize. We should also make templates for them. I plan to have the following templates. Whenever the templates are created, they will be striked. Templates may be added to this list in the futurer. Any suggestions for the creation of templates are welcome. Also, a page should be written explaining what templates are and their usage. The list is as follows: *Template:Delete *Template:Speedy delete *Template:Merge *Template:Stub *Template:Cleanup *Template:Section cleanup *Template:Speculation Policy should also be written for the usage of the templates. Y462 (T • • ) 04:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC) :I think we can simplify these by using the cleanup template for section cleanup and speculation. Also, there's really no difference between Delete and Speedy delete, since if it was speedy delete an admin would just delete it instead of tagging it, and if it's a non-admin using the template, an admin would still have to review it to make sure it was the correct tag. So I think the only template we're missing is Cleanup. - Derple (talk) 23:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC) ::The speculation template would be for articles that aren't necessarily needing a cleanup, but for articles with unverified claims such as Mark I. The section cleanup template would be for a section in an article that needs cleanup, but the article itself is fine. A speedy delete template would be for spam pages that are clearly spam, not requiring any discussion for deletion. Y462 (T • • ) 01:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC) :::Yes, I understand the function of the templates, I just don't think they're necessary. I'm suggesting using Cleanup when something needs cleaning up, be it a section or speculation. Speedy delete is totally unnecessary, because it won't get a page deleted any faster than a regular Delete template would. This isn't Wikipedia with multiple edits every second; the less bureaucracy and red tape we have the better. - Derple (talk) 06:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC) ::::Now that I think about it, the speedy delete template wouldn't really be necessary in a Wiki with only a small amount of editors. For the section cleanup, I think we can just put "This page/section is in need of cleanup!" or something similar to that. We have all of those templates other than section cleanup at my main Wiki, so that's why I suggested them. Y462 (T • • ) 01:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC) :::::Yeah, as we grow we may want more templates, categories, policies, etc. Right now though, one admin can easily look over every edit to the wiki, so the different tags are kind of irrelevant. - Derple (talk) 04:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC) New organization implemented I've gone through and made some category changes as outlined above. I haven't started on the images yet though, just the pages. Pretty much everything starts out at Category:Games and you can drill down from there. Each game also has its own category, which contains the main page, all subcategories and any single pages that don't need a category. The Category:Hitman: Blood Money category is a good example. From that category, you can access missions, weapons, characters, targets, etc. for that specific game. Also, on the main Category:Weapons and Category:Missions pages, you can see the subcategories grouped by game. I think this is pretty intuitive. Along with the category organization we should provide links to each game's main page on the wiki's main page, as well as links to the major categories. Up for discussion are a couple points. First, I got rid of the weapon subcategories like Shotguns, Handguns etc., as they'd now be sub-subcategories, and it's not like there are a million weapons, so it seemed kind of unnecessary. Also, I think the glitches should all be on one page for each game, and just categorized by the game's category. So it would show up as a page in the game category like Hitman: Blood Money Achievements does. Let me know what you think about these things, or anything else. - Derple (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC) :I don't have a problem with getting rid of categories with a very small amount of pages. Y462 (T • • ) 01:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Policies There are numerous policies that I believe should be in effect. Implementing these policies now will reduce conflict in the furture I believe. Any suggetions for a change in policy is welcome. Anyone believing that a certain policy is unecessary should say so. Also, any suggestions are welcome. Whenever the policy is writen/considered unecessary, it will be stiked from the following list. The list is as follows: *Cleanup *Stub *Delete *Merge *Scope *Style *Image licensing The list is subject to change. Y462 (T • • ) 01:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC) :Well, you categorized the Stub page as a guideline not a policy, which I think is correct. The difference is that policies are non-negotiable and can't be changed without a major, long-term discussion. These I think we should keep to a minimum, like not using copyrighted files or text. Guidelines are a bit more flexible, which allows for going against them if it's worthwhile and there's a consensus for it. I added Scope to the list, as we may run into things that just don't belong on the wiki, plus we'll want to explicitly say whether we are okay with non-game information, like the movie, soundtracks, voice-actor page, etc. The other ones look good too, and I've also added a Styles page so we can define what mission pages, weapons pages, etc. should look like. We should keep in mind that it's pretty much just you and me right now, so these will probably change as we get more users who can also contribute ideas. - Derple (talk) 05:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC) I have written the cleanup policy. Feel free to discuss any problems you may have with the policy on its talk page. Y462 (T • • ) 00:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC) I have written the Deletion Policy. Feel free to discuss any problems you may have with the policy on its talk page. ''Penguinof '' 21:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC) :Let's just say that in general, everyone is open to discussion on guideline talk pages. Some of these look more like help pages than guidelines though. Cleanup, merge and stub aren't really controversial subjects, and the pages read more like how-to-use instructions. Maybe we should consider moving them to the Help space. - Derple (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC) ::The point of a guideline or policy is to help users understand better the workings of that particular wiki. Putting them on a help page, I believe, would make them seem less official and more open to enterpretation. I strongly disagree with your statement that "cleanup, merge and stub aren't really controversial subjects". A user may feel that, after they worked hard an article, it's not fair to mark it for cleanup as it implies that they did a poor job of editing it. A user may feel that the subject of an article is important enough to have its own page, while another user may feel equally strongly that it is undeserving of its own page and that it would be better suited to being a paragraph or two on another page. A user may feel that an article needs more information to be useful, while another user may feel equally strongly that there is nothing more to be said on the subject, and that it would in fact be a waste of server space to add anything else as everything relevant has already been said. Arguments between users, possibly escalating to edit war or personal attack level, break out frequently over such things at other wikis. I'm not saying they will here, just that they are controversial subjects, and that there should be tight policies on them to avoid such events. The pages should read like how-to-use instructions, as that's what they are, instructions to users on the appropriate use of tags. ''Penguinof '' 21:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC) :::What you're talking about (differences of opinion) have nothing to do with templates. Any policy regarding people getting heated over edits should fall under a "respect other editors" policy. As I've said earlier, policies are different than guidelines. Policies are enforceable, black and white proclamations to be taken very seriously. Guidelines are flexible and exist to document current feelings of the community on a variety of subjects for the purpose of guiding anyone who is unsure. This is a very small wiki and doesn't need a large amount of policies or even guidelines. These are things that should grow organically with the wiki, and are formed when issues arise and a consensus is reached. No offense in any way, but the wiki you come from is rife with drama and bureaucracy, which I'd like to avoid here since both are needless impediments to wiki collaborations. Anyone angered or hurt by cleanup tags being put on their page should engage in rational and constructive discussion just like at any other time. A policy to this effect is fine (although if someone needs a policy to tell them this, it's probably a waste), but let's not go overboard with making rules for everything. - Derple (talk) 23:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC) If no one is opposed to the existence of a merge guideline/policy, then I will create it. Y462 (T • • ) 18:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC) Choosing some admin My adoption request was declined, so it's up to us to choose an admin or two. If you want to nominate someone (including yourself), add a section below. Make sure you look at these users' contributions and talk pages when making a decision. Thanks. - Derple (talk) 09:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC) :Shouldn't we also nominate a bureaucrat? Y462 (T • • ) 15:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC) ::Yeah, we should have someone who can give/take away sysop and rollbacker powers so we don't have to go through this process again. This nomination might as well be to become bureacrats. From there the bureaucrats can handle RfAs. Also, I don't think reasoning for support/oppose/undecided is necessary on the nominations unless there's something you think other users should take into consideration. - Derple (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC) :::How long should we keep the nominations open? Y462 (T • • ) 20:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC) ::::Well, we need to give everyone a chance to nominate and support or oppose whomever they choose. It really doesn't seem like there's all that much activity though, which is why we have to go through this in the first place. If no one has responded at all in a week, I'll ask a staff member to give our nominations a look. If we get some people coming around though, we'll just have to play it by ear. We just want to make sure anyone who wants to gets a chance to give their input. - Derple (talk) 00:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Should we now close the nominations? Y462 (T • • ) 23:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC) :I've left a message on Catherine Munro's talk page, but so far no response. If we don't hear anything in a while, I'll try making an addendum to my adoption request. - Derple (talk) 06:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC) ::How much longer should we wait? Y462 (T • • ) 23:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC) :::I was going to wait another week, as I'm sure Catherine is pretty busy. You can bump the adoption request yourself if you think it's moving too slowly though. - Derple (talk) 05:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Update: I left a message on my adoption request, but there is a quite a backlog on the page, so it wouldn't surprise me if we got lost in the shuffle. If no response is forthcoming, I'll attempt to ask on another staff member's talk page, as it seems that Catherine may be one of the busiest on the site. - Derple (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC) :Well, it seems that we got lost in the adoption requests. This is because no one responded to the note and the adoption request has been archived. Y462 (T • • ) 02:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC) ::Okay, I'll try leaving another talk page message then. I'll try a staff member with some recent edits. - Derple (talk) 04:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC) :::All right, quick update. I saw on Uberfuzzy's talk page that he directed someone else with similar issues to Special:Contact, so I've sent an email to the Wikia staff. As far as I know, we've done all we can on our end. Hopefully we'll get a response in the next couple days (I've never used the contact procedure before, so that's a guesstimate). - Derple (talk) 04:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC) ::::The members of the Community Team (Uberfuzzy, Sannse, ...) are online a lot of the time, even if they're not editing. They're just quite busy, so they often take a while to get around to specific problems. One way to get their attention quickly is on the IRC, there is always at least one of them on. ''Penguinof '' 21:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Become an Admin I really want to be an Admin. I will do my best and I find it very important that I am one you can trust. To become an Admin on this wiki would be fantastic and a perfect thing for me. I am a big fan of Hitman and know very much about it. I guess that`s all the important skills a good Admin must have. Thanks :Becoming an administrator has more to do with understanding wiki procedure and policies. You have the skills to become a good contributor, but having the power to delete pages, rollback edits, hide history summaries and lock pages doesn't have anything to do with knowing a lot about Hitman. Like I said on your talk page, once you get a good understanding of how the wiki works and the guidelines for editing, I think you'll be ready. Until then, we can't really ask you to perform a function you don't yet know how to do. Good luck! - Derple (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Wiki stuff Hey, I'd like to come up with some standard colors for use throughout the wiki. These would be heading styles and colors, table styles and color, etc. So far I've been going with white, red, gray and black, which are the colors I think of most from playing the games. The only thing I would suggest strongly, is to keep the background of the wiki white, and leave the red as an accent color so we don't overdo it. Other than that, I'm open to any suggestions. Also, I've been working on a new front page for us. If you like that layout all right, just make changes on it or use the talk page there, but if you want to go a whole different route, start a page in your userspace and we'll switch it out if everyone likes it better. As always, any suggestions are welcome – either things you've seen on other wikis, or entirely new stuff. It's kind of hard to think up cool features since we have so little content, but eventually we might want to do something like random pictures or quotes or member spotlights or something. - Derple (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC) :Okay, I changed up the Hitman: Blood Money page with a navigation system using the new collapsible template. I originally had the navigation bar at the bottom of the page, but moved it up top. It kind of depends on whether you have JavaScript enabled how good it looks, so let me know if we should move it down after the game infobox. Also, let me know (if you have JavaScript enabled) whether the navigation bar starts shown or hidden when you first load the page. It starts hidden for me, which is how I want it, but I don't know if that's because I've hidden it before or what. Okay, that's all. — Derple (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC) ::I like the colors and nav bar looks really nice. The only thing I don't like is that the content of the nav bar is hidden by default. I didn't even notice the nav bar on Hitman: Blood Money the first few times I visited it, and on that page that's where almost all of the content is. So I think it would be much better to always show the content by default and possibly to move the nav bars back to the bottom of the game pages. But other than that, everything looks great. - Hello? 22:27, November 25, 2009 (UTC)